The term reductio ad Hitlerum (sometimes rendered reductio ad Hitlerem)—whimsical Latin for "reduction to Hitler"—was originally coined by University of Chicago professor and ethicist Leo Strauss. The phrase comes from the better known logical argument reductio ad absurdum. It is a variety of association fallacy and may also be described as argumentum ad nazium, though some distinguish the latter as referring to Nazi actions or beliefs with reductio ad Hitlerum being reserved for arguments involving Hitler himself. The relative frequency of such comparisons in Usenet discussions led to the formulation of Godwin's Law in 1990.

The reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy assumes the form of "Adolf Hitler (or the Nazi party) supported X; therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad, etc"; or, less commonly, "Adolf Hitler was against X; therefore X must be good, desirable, praiseworthy, etc." This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazis.

It is important to understand that those policies advocated by Hitler and his party which are generally considered evil are all condemned by themselves, not because Hitler supported them. In other words: genocide and Aryan white supremacism (for example) are not considered evil because Hitler advocated them, but rather Hitler is considered evil because he advocated them.

The fallacious nature of Reductio ad Hitlerum is best illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical — for example, X = "building expressways", X = "painting watercolors", X = "owning dogs", X = vegetarianism. It may also be refuted through counterexamples:

• Dwight Eisenhower, who despised Hitler's criminality, admired his Autobahns and promoted the Interstate Highway System in the United States.
• Hitler's opponent Sir Winston Churchill also painted.
• U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and his successor Harry Truman, who continued to prosecute the war against Germany, also owned dogs.
• Mahatma Gandhi was a vegetarian.

The argument being fallacious, however, does not prove X, or its supporters, not being evil (assuming that would be another fallacy, namely affirming the consequent). Moreover, recall that the argument is fallacious in itself, no matter whether X is actually good or evil. So, "Hitler killed human beings, therefore killing is wrong", is nonetheless a fallacy, however truthful the premise and conclusion may be, because there is no logical connection between the two of them. It would be akin to "I wear trousers, therefore tomorrow it will rain". This sentence is logically faulty, even if the speaker does wear trousers, and the next day does turn out rainy.

The phrase Reductio ad Hitlerum first appeared in Leo Strauss's writings in his 1950 book, Natural Right and History, Chapter II:

In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.

Sundry criminals, religious and political cranks, and tyrants other than Hitler could be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that corporal punishment of wayward children is necessary because Josef Stalin enacted its abolition, or that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist. ^[1] Similarly, a reductio ad Cromwellium would equate enjoying chamber music with hating the Irish. Yet, it would make as much sense as saying that men with moustaches are evil because Hitler and Stalin had moustaches.

One website on logic has used the statement "The Nazis favored eugenics. Therefore, eugenics is wrong," as a typical example of the "association fallacy" known as a Reductio ad Hitlerum.^[2]

See also

• Association fallacy
• Ad hominem
• Godwin's Law
• Reductio ad absurdum

External links

• Logical Fallacy: The Hitler Card

•  • [ e] Fallacies of relevance
General	Absurdity • Accident • Ad nauseam • Argument from ignorance • Argument from silence • Bandwagon Fallacy • Base rate fallacy • Bulverism • Compound question • Fallacy of many questions • False compromise • Middle ground • Naturalistic fallacy • Proof by assertion • Irrelevant conclusion • Special pleading • Straw man • Style over substance fallacy • Two wrongs make a right
Appeals to emotion	Fear • Flattery • Nature • Novelty • Pity • Ridicule • Repugnance • Spite
Genetic fallacies	Ad hominem (Ad hominem tu quoque) • Appeal to authority • Appeal to motive • Appeal to tradition • Appeal to wealth • Appeal to poverty • Association fallacy • Chronological snobbery • Ipsedixitism • Poisoning the well • Appeal to Etymology • Reductio ad Hitlerum
Appeals to consequences	Appeal to force • Wishful thinking

References